I appreciate all of the information that this site has provided me. However, it is obvious that a good portion of posters here would be considered Conservative in their political beliefs. While I appreciate those views, the fact remains that I am politically a Progressive, a typically Californian Leftist if you will, although I differ with the average Democrat on 2A issues. I am an Air Force Veteran, a believer in the first amendment as it pertains to the separation of church and state, an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a gun owner, a father, and a patriot. It would be nice to communicate with likewise progressives that share my support of the 2nd Amendment. I know from talking to people that there are a lot more of us than the right wing would suggest. So, my suggestion would be for a forum dedicated to us on the Left, so that we can join the discussion on how best to preserve our 2A rights.

What about the rest of your political platform?

And what kinds of restrictions do you feel are appropriate to the 2A?

__________________

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

What's stopping you from creating CAProgressiveGunOwners.org or something similar?

There aren't any political belief specific forums on cgn now, what makes progressives so special that they get their own forum?

Believe me, I've considered it, and I am a member of The Liberal Gun Club. My intent was to enter the enemy's camp, so to speak, and attempt to engage the more conservative members on how better they could engage in dialogue with liberals and to suggest how to convert liberals on the fence. This fallacy that liberals don't own guns is, quite frankly, a figment of the conservative mind that cannot comprehend it. In the real world, we own guns just like you do. perhaps not in the same numbers, but we do exist. And we are just as concerned as you are over the erosion of our liberties when it comes to gun ownership in California. One simpleton suggestion echoed here is to stop voting Democratic. While that may seem the easy answer, in real life it's just not that simple. Would you start voting Democrat just because you believe in a woman's right to choose? I started this thread to attempt to engage conservatives on how best to address issues that effect us both. I won't continue to waste my time if your only response is to fling your feces at me.

The rest of my political platform is irrelevant to this discussion. As to 2A restrictions, I believe that your 2A rights end where my God given rights begin. I.E., if in exercising your 2A rights, you infringe on my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you have crossed the line.

I wonder if any of you are familiar with Emperor Nero's musical abilities...

Of course.

Progressive liberals fiddle while California burns...

We welcome our friendly undocumented workers and cheerfully give them financial breaks unavailable to U.S. citizens.

We encourage the FSA, knowing full well that EBT and welfare were originally intended as a bootstrap up...not as an ongoing way of support for those who, whatever the excuse, don't really feel like getting up and working 5 days a week; like the people who support their lifestyle do.

California is broke, financially, politically, and philosophically.

Those who can, move to a state where citizens are actually responsible to fix their own issues, instead of sucking on the teat of a nanny state.

Thinking that you'll convert liberals to favor the 2nd Amendment is an admirable but lofty goal. I wish you luck.

I'd submit that the great majority of liberal Democrats fully realize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but don't mind living under a government that is becoming increasingly controlling and approaching tyrannical, as long as they can escape responsibility for their own lot in life with massive government assistance.

-hanko

__________________"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

Originally Posted By System Message:
Why can't you guys participate in a simple discussion about some guy's mom making a porno without violating the COC? This is why we can't have nice things.

“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”Mark Twain

And you completely miss the point that I am one of those gun owners also. And I am mad as hell that Democrats in this state have done so well at demonizing me and my hobby. While it might help you sleep at night, making knee-jerk statements on how illogical democratic thought is, really serves no purpose in the debate. We all recognize that we see issues differently. Insulting me says more about your character than mine. And the chance of this state turning red anytime soon is about the same as you getting chosen to head Planned Parenthood. Sometimes it seems that conservatives can only do one thing, and one thing only. And that is to ***** about Democrats and bang their spoons on their high-chairs like some insolent baby. Protip, pal: You will continue to lose this argument in this state if you refuse to even engage with your fellow citizens on the important topics of the day. Gun Control/2A being one of the most important.

I did not miss the point. I understood it very clearly. I'm glad that you are mad as hell the D's in CA have demonized you and your hobby, buy I am livid that they have stomped on the Constitution and my civil rights. There's a huge difference from your train of thought of being inconvenienced and someone like myself and many others on here who are active in trying to restore civil rights. And, discussing how illogical democratic thought is, is the debate. That is the only reason these things are happening. Someone's feelings get hurt, they react emotionally, not logically, and the end result is always legislation that lacks logic. And speaking of being on high-chairs, it the the Democrats that always claim to have the moral high ground on the gun issue, not the Republicans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ericb760

I would absolutely agree. But you cannot tell me that every shot you put downrange you do for 2A reasons. I propose minimizing that aspect of gun ownership, at least initially. Take it from me, if you take a lib to the range and start spouting "Molon Labe!" at them, you will have already lost the game. Better to play up the sportsman aspects than try to thump them over the head with a concept that is distant and foreign to them. Has that been working very well for you up to now? And can we please set aside my voting record for now? While I did vote for Obama, I DID NOT vote for any sitting California politician.

Most, if not all, of my shots put downrange have been recreational. Read my post again, it is still a secondary reason for gun ownership. Once again, the sportsman card is failed logic. Playing up the sportsman aspect is one the main reasons why Democrats feel they can control the issue. To them it is about sportsmen, and guess what? They don't feel that a sportsman needs an AR15 which means that it is ok to ban such weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ericb760

Believe me, I've considered it, and I am a member of The Liberal Gun Club. My intent was to enter the enemy's camp, so to speak, and attempt to engage the more conservative members on how better they could engage in dialogue with liberals and to suggest how to convert liberals on the fence. This fallacy that liberals don't own guns is, quite frankly, a figment of the conservative mind that cannot comprehend it. In the real world, we own guns just like you do. perhaps not in the same numbers, but we do exist. And we are just as concerned as you are over the erosion of our liberties when it comes to gun ownership in California. One simpleton suggestion echoed here is to stop voting Democratic. While that may seem the easy answer, in real life it's just not that simple. Would you start voting Democrat just because you believe in a woman's right to choose? I started this thread to attempt to engage conservatives on how best to address issues that effect us both. I won't continue to waste my time if your only response is to fling your feces at me.

First, there is no way you can be just as concerned over the erosion of your liberties if you are voting in those that erode your liberties. Second, a simpleton would believe that it is possible to vote for a candidate that would side with and be concerned with and act on every one of your political viewpoints and have society's problems solved. A realist should choose maybe a handful of topics and vote based on that even if you know the candidate is not for other issues that might not be as high up on your priorities list for you. So, yes, if my biggest issue was a woman's right to choose, then I would vote Democrat. It just so happens that my biggest issue is 2A and civil rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ericb760

The rest of my political platform is irrelevant to this discussion. As to 2A restrictions, I believe that your 2A rights end where my God given rights begin. I.E., if in exercising your 2A rights, you infringe on my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you have crossed the line.

Anything related to infringing on you right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a gun is already illegal, everything else is knee-jerk legislation based on emotion rather than logic.

I'd submit that the great majority of liberal Democrats fully realize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but don't mind living under a government that is becoming increasingly controlling and approaching tyrannical, as long as they can escape responsibility for their own lot in life with massive government assistance.

-hanko

And I would counter that the "great majority" of liberal Democrats, do, indeed, have a higher tolerance for government intrusion in their lives, however, there will come a time when that level exceeds the majority of Democrats tolerance as well. I already hear it among my friends and colleagues. They might be a little late to the party, but at least they are showing up. Rather than rejecting that shift, I would suggest that you embrace it.

And I would counter that the "great majority" of liberal Democrats, do, indeed, have a higher tolerance for government intrusion in their lives, however, there will come a time when that level exceeds the majority of Democrats tolerance as well. I already hear it among my friends and colleagues. They might be a little late to the party, but at least they are showing up. Rather than rejecting that shift, I would suggest that you embrace it.

Not only will I embrace it, I just might make love to it.

Though I'm patiently waiting to see just the smallest evidence of it...maybe the 2014 elections, I pray.

eta...The hardest concept you have to impart is that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal results. Good results happen when one works his butt off...working your butt off may be the 2nd most difficult concept.

Good op, too.

-hanko

__________________"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

Originally Posted By System Message:
Why can't you guys participate in a simple discussion about some guy's mom making a porno without violating the COC? This is why we can't have nice things.

“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”Mark Twain

You don't seem to realize just how much money is involved in this stuff. Even if you had openly pro 2a democrats running for office, they'll get eliminated from the running via lack of money and support from the party. Like I said, it works in other states, not CA.

I know how much money is involved in this stuff.

But what does "the party" have to do with it? Local primary campaigns are not funded by "the party". If you are a democrat, and you are pro-2A, nothing prevents you from taking out candidacy papers the next time an election for state assembly member comes up. And your position in planning an election campaign, finding volunteers, and raising funds will not be worse than your opponents, just because you are pro-2A. Neither you nor your opponent will get their campaign funded and organized by "the party". There is no "democratic headquarters" in Sacramento which hands the keys to the kingdom to someone; instead primary campaigns are usually grassroots affairs.

Now, in order to know enough people and have enough local support, you have to work your way up. You can't just come out of nowhere, as an unknown, and expect that you can find volunteers and donors. You have to become known first. If you really want to become a member of the state legislature, you have to first spent thousands of hours volunteering for other campaigns, you have to spend a decade on the local school board or water committee or city council, and do lots of interacting with the local party organization (go to the monthly meeting, volunteer for lots of tasks), so that people start respecting and trusting you. Once you have that, the question whether you're pro- or anti-2A will make very little difference to your primary campaign.

In about 2/3 or all California legislative districts, a pro-2A democratic candidate only has to win the primary to be elected, as the republicans have become irrelevant. You make it sound like the democratic primaries are gamed by a cabal that meets in smoke-filled rooms called "the party". That's really far away from reality; primary campaigns are for the most part local and community-based affairs.

A. Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer are probably too far settled in their world view to have their opinion changed.

B. Yee and DeLeon are about to be termed out. They will become irrelevant soon. The real fight is in electing their successors. If California's pro-gun people wanted to, it would be easy for them to groom a set of democratic pro-gun candidates (it would take a concerted effort and a decade). But that's not happening, because in California pro-gun work is 99% associated with extreme right-wing positions, and nearly all pro-gun people hate democrats with a passion.

C. Newsom is an interesting case. He may very well have a great political career ahead of him (he's smart enough, he has good connections, and he's worked his way to the right steps on the ladder slowly). He may also have reached the peak of what he can get to.

D. Any politician (Yee, DeLeon, Newsom included) will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. If they got lots of messages from their constituents indicating that their likely voters are unhappy about their anti-gun actions, they will listen. But today, they are not getting these messages at all. Instead, they get mostly two sets of messages.

One is from their core democratic constituents (and likely voters), saying how happy they are that the crazy right-wing gun nuts are getting screwed over. After all, if you look around (for example here on Calguns), you will find that pro-gun people are overwhelmingly on the far right end of the spectrum, and their hate for democrats causes an equal and opposite reaction, namely democratic faithfuls hating gun people.

And they get hate mail from republicans. For an example, look at what happened to Yee when he proposed SB 249: he was insulted, called a communist, told to go back to China, and made the subject of racial jokes. And he got death threats (someone actually got arrested for that, and is currently being tried). But all those came from people who were guaranteed to not vote for him anyhow! All the hate mail (and worse) was simply irrelevant to him.

Do you want to know how many messages Yee's staff received from democratic voters who were unhappy with SB 249? Less than 10, of which only 2 or 3 were from voters in his district. Those are the only people who actually mattered to him, and there were darn few!

To make it 110% clear, let me say it again: Among his plausible voters, support of SB 249 outnumbered opposition by a factor of at least 20 to 1!

And here lies the problem. Many smart politicians (whose re-election is not guaranteed because of seniority, like Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi) would be willing to listen to their constituents, that being in California democratic voters. If there was a groundswell of pro-gun sentiment among democratic voters, the leaders would follow. But that won't happen, because (a) pro-gun forces are overwhelmingly republican, thereby making a good scarecrow, and (b) pro-gun forces delight in insulting and offending democrats.

And if we can't get our current elected office holders to listen to a groundswell of pro-gun sentiment, we can replace them at the next primary election. With our short term limits, that is a pretty rapid process. Again, if pro-gun people were willing to work within the democratic-leaning community, they could accomplish that. But gunnies are much happier being isolated in their corner, and keeping democrats at arms length.

Personal anecdote: In the summer of 2010, I was managing a political campaign, and contacting voters myself. I cold-called a gentleman who turned out to be the chairman of the Santa Cruz county tea party organization. I was trying to convince him to support my cause, and in order to do so, I chatted about all matters of things with him. Turns out that we frequent the same shooting range (although to my knowledge, we had never met in person). We even had friends in common (one of his shooting buddies lives close to me). He was completely amazed that a democratic campaign organizer would be a gun person, with assault weapons, high-powered rifles, and a collection of interesting pistols; and that one of my friends is on the board of directors of a local shooting range. This is the kind of outreach we need on both sides. We need to convince republicans that democrats are not automatically anti-gun, and we need to convince democrats that guns are not automatically evil and icky.

I always find it quite curious when a liberal progressive tells conservatives "you need to reach out to democrats, take them to the range and who knows, they might be persuaded to 2A. If you don't do that, its your fault if you lose your 2A rights!"

The logic just eludes me....

__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson

They're getting termed out of current positions. Yee has already started campaigning for a new position. Finally getting termed out doesn't mean a thing in this state other than it being time to shuffle jobs around.

As far as not understanding how the democrat party in CA operates, you must be imagining some utopia. It doesn't matter if the cash isn't handed directly to the candidates. It comes down to setting up fundraisers, connections, and air time(I don't just mean paying for TV ads). All of that involves money.

This is not a matter of needing to "reach across the aisle and compromise", that methodology has gotten us where we are today at the state and federal levels(which is to say... 2a is in the crapper, in case you haven't noticed). There can be no more compromise on the matter. If you vote for an anti, you are an anti.

The rest of my political platform is irrelevant to this discussion. As to 2A restrictions, I believe that your 2A rights end where my God given rights begin. I.E., if in exercising your 2A rights, you infringe on my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you have crossed the line.

Okay fair enough on the irrelevant stuff then.

So onto the 2A. Cool, sounds like you would have no problem if I owned fully automatic weapons, plenty of ammo (cause they eat it like candy) and sound suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and of course I'm sure you won't mind if I carry a pistol (or two, or three) concealed, maybe even a nice shotgun pistol.

I of course support all those things for everyone else as well.

Repeal the NFA and every other gun law enacted since at the Federal, State, and Local levels. I believe 2A means just what it says, in the same way 1A does.

__________________

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

The problem is, when caught between 2A and everything else... independents and liberals alike are between a rock and a hard place. There is a whole generation coming through that believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry and protect themselves with a gun - I use that example because that is minority group that damn well need to.

That basically shows that 22% of self identifying liberals are gun owners. 35% are independents. You can draw your own conclusions on the source...

But bottom line, insulting 5, 10, 22, 35 or whatever out of every hundred gun owners when fighting to reinstall a right is just a terrible idea. It's a recipe for a long drawn out disaster. It's not a question of compromise, there is no compromise when a right is being trampled and edged away. It's a question of getting everyone that understands whatever party they favour, minority group they belong to... to educate and influence as much as they can.

I always find it quite curious when a liberal progressive tells conservatives "you need to reach out to democrats, take them to the range and who knows, they might be persuaded to 2A. If you don't do that, its your fault if you lose your 2A rights!"

The logic just eludes me....

In the microcosm that is California politics, your statement is essentially true. It's too bad that this simple fact remains beyond your grasp.

You didn't get my point. If a pro-2A person wants to make a difference in California politics, they need to be elected, in a place where they can replace an anti-2A politician. To do so, they need to be democrats (because republicans have become irrelevant in this state). This means they have to win primaries.

And primaries are not won by "the party" (a foggy cabal that occupies back rooms), but by local efforts. See below for details.

They're getting termed out of current positions. Yee has already started campaigning for a new position. Finally getting termed out doesn't mean a thing in this state other than it being time to shuffle jobs around.[/quote]
I'm very aware of Yee's political plans.

Quote:

As far as not understanding how the democrat party in CA operates, you must be imagining some utopia.

I'm a democratic campaign organizer and manager. I've caused several elections to be won (meaning they went the way I campaigned for). Claiming that I live in some "utopia" is a bit odd, since I see the system from inside.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if the cash isn't handed directly to the candidates. It comes down to setting up fundraisers, connections, and air time(I don't just mean paying for TV ads). All of that involves money.

Absolutely correct. You get the details, but the big picture eludes you. In order to set up fundraisers, connections, air time, and most importantly money, you need to work the local circuit (circus?). If you want to be elected, you need to volunteer for the local democratic club, you have to help other candidates and causes with their campaigns, you need to start on small-time boards and commissions (school board, neighborhood group, planning commission, city council), and you need to make connections. Once people know that you are reasonable, reliable, and trustworthy, "the party" (which is really just a description of the aggregate of locally involved people) will support you.

Quote:

This is not a matter of needing to "reach across the aisle and compromise", that methodology has gotten us where we are today at the state and federal levels(which is to say... 2a is in the crapper, in case you haven't noticed).

A. I haven't noticed. The heads of the CGF keep claiming that the 2A is doing extremely well, and that their campaign is succeeding, as long as you send them more money. Maybe you didn't get the memo from the likes of Gene, Brett and Josh?

B. If you claim the 2A is in the crapper, please explain Heller, MacDonald, the lack of any anti-2A legislation at the federal level after Sandy Hook, the demise of SB 249, and so on.

C. I'm not advocating that hard-core republicans reach across the aisle and reach a compromise. That's hopeless. I'm advocating that the way to win is to start the "march through the institutions".

Quote:

There can be no more compromise on the matter. If you vote for an anti, you are an anti.

With that statement you just demonstrated that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The "No compromise" position is a death sentence in politics. And since I assume that you use the assignment "anti = democrat", you just declared all democratic voters (meaning about 2/3 of all Californians) to be you enemy, virtually guaranteeing that you will lose.

With that statement you just demonstrated that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The "No compromise" position is a death sentence in politics. And since I assume that you use the assignment "anti = democrat", you just declared all democratic voters (meaning about 2/3 of all Californians) to be you enemy, virtually guaranteeing that you will lose.

1. I've pointed out that pro 2a politicians exist, in other states. I've also pointed out quite clearly a couple of times now that the republican party is not necessarily a friend of 2a in CA either(I even gave names). My point was that if you're voting for an anti, you are an anti. It just so happens in this state that democrat politicians are anti gun. Of course you should know that helping to get some elected, hmmm...

2. You must be a bunch of illiterates, since last I checked "shall not be infringed" was fairly simple to understand. What, as a pro 2a person you claim to be, is tolerable as a compromise on 2a then? POLICESTATE already asked one person who didn't bother to answer, so maybe you can?

3. Regarding 2a in the crapper, heller did not magically revoke all of the unconstitutional BS that we've had to put up with at every level over the past few decades, neither did mcdonald. But since you think that the 2a isn't in the crapper due to compromise after compromise, please enlighten us about your views of 2a as per my point above referring to POLICESTATE's question.

4. If any of the democrats you claim to be responsible for getting elected(gee, glory hog much?) are actually pro 2a, let us know. If they're anti 2a, thanks for helping the antis.

Agreed, Chainsaw. I generally keep non-technical positions under my hat around here, as the political atmosphere around here is so heavily polarized. I think the pro-2A folks around here could do a lot better recognizing that there are allies to be had within the D party and independents. (And possibly, recognize that they're not really out to destroy America, even though they might have a different idea of what good government policy looks like.)

C. I'm not advocating that hard-core republicans reach across the aisle and reach a compromise. That's hopeless. I'm advocating that the way to win is to start the "march through the institutions".

Truth.

The path in Contra Costa appears to be Mt Diablo School District (sometimes), Concord (sometimes Antioch) City Council, CC Supervisor, then Assembly, then CA Senate. No movement into US House, because George Miller has that seat as long as he wants it.

The 'power groups' of supporters here are housing developers and other construction (principally Seeno), other private public service providers (principally Garaventa), the teacher's union, and the Martinez refinery unions; it's easy enough to see - the FPPC and Secretary of State have records of political contributions.

For folks to have influence now, we should have started 20 years ago. If we consider how difficult it has been to even get gun owners to register to vote, we can estimate why it has been difficult in the past to get them involved in local politics.

Absolutely correct. You get the details, but the big picture eludes you. In order to set up fundraisers, connections, air time, and most importantly money, you need to work the local circuit (circus?). If you want to be elected, you need to volunteer for the local democratic club, you have to help other and causes with their campaigns, you need to start on small-time boards and commissions (school board, neighborhood group, planning commission, city council), and you need to make connections. Once people know that you are reasonable, reliable, and trustworthy, "the party" (which is really just a description of the aggregate of locally involved people) will support you.

I beg to differ. "The party" is exactly that, the group of individuals, power players that lead and pull the strings to steer the issues and agenda of their respective ideology. No democrat or republican stands alone. You're going to hear "we're going to need your help on this issue" a lot from the seasoned members. Toe the line, particularly as a freshman representative, or you will never get a second term. If you don't support "the party" you can forget about anyone endorsing anything you propose and will therefore have wasted 2 years of your, and your constituent's, time. That's politics, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

__________________FOR SALE:
Parachute. Used once, never opened. Small stain. Best offer.

“Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.” – Sen. Barbara Boxer

In the microcosm that is California politics, your statement is essentially true. It's too bad that this simple fact remains beyond your grasp.

It is the logic of your argument that alludes me, not the fact progressive/left ideology is anti gun. So the onus is on progressive/left to turn their ideology from anti 2A to pro 2A. The only ones who can do that are progressive/left. How is the onus on conservatives to change it?

Then you have Chainsaw. Is he grooming the next pro 2A progressive? Not that he has said he is, but he isn't short on lectures on "how its done" and who is to blame, Conservatives. Again, onus on Conservatives. Those red neck, hill billy, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobes who expect people to be individually responsible for ones actions. Those ones.

The fact is, the progressive/left has no room for 2A rights. It doesn't fit their world view. Blaming conservatives for progressive/left ideology that seeks to void the 2nd Amend, well, I guess it must take a progressive to do that mental leap of logic.

__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson

It is the logic of your argument that alludes me, not the fact progressive/left ideology is anti gun. So the onus is on progressive/left to turn their ideology from anti 2A to pro 2A. The only ones who can do that are progressive/left. How is the onus on conservatives to change it?

Now you are arguing just for arguing sake. Progressives will never turn to guns on their own. The only reasonable way to change their opinion is to engage them and truly attempt to convey to them your appreciation of the sport of firearms. Leave the politics out of it for the time being. It is, should you accept the challenge, one of the only arrows you have left in your quiver. But it would seem that most here have absolutely no desire or intention of attempting anything along those lines. Childish really.

Now you are arguing just for arguing sake. Progressives will never turn to guns on their own. The only reasonable way to change their opinion is to engage them and truly attempt to convey to them your appreciation of the sport of firearms. Leave the politics out of it for the time being. It is, should you accept the challenge, one of the only arrows you have left in your quiver. But it would seem that most here have absolutely no desire or intention of attempting anything along those lines. Childish really.

I really think he should get together with political savvy Chainsaw, and come up with a plan of action. Hook up with other progressives and storm the state house. They can flood the gallery during anti 2A arguments and shout their disapproval with the usual songs and clapping. Or canvas the capitol hounding senators and assembly person(s) (I can be PC too)and demanding they drop their anti 2A views.

__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson

Based off the post he started this thread with, he apparently doesn't understand 1a, so it's not really any wonder and this point that 2a escapes him.

This is tougher than I thought it would be. I'll try again. Liberals do not share your obsession with 2A. It is not a concept that they have daily, or even monthly or yearly, contact with. As I've stated earlier, they are generally less concerned with government intrusion in to their lives. That doesn't make them bad or stupid, just knowledge challenged. The simple fact is that the boom of post-WWII that created a huge middle class in America lessened the need for a firearm to protect you. We have, indeed, become a very safe society to live in and millions of Americans now go their entire lives without witnessing first-hand violence that would preclude the use and ownership of a firearm. Heck, I've talked to retired cops who never once drew their gun their entire careers. It's not so much that liberals "hate" guns. Rather, we have, fictionally it turns out, made society safe enough to live in without a Smith & Wesson strapped to your leg. So when you start the conversation with "from my cold, dead hands...", there is no frame of reference from which they can understand. It has to be taught, just like anything else worth knowing. I took an NRA handgun course last week. It lasted an hour and the 2A was never even mentioned. So why START the conversation with that? They will not see the government in the same light that you do. That is my reason for suggesting the "sporting" aspect of gun ownership as a starting point. FYI, as veteran, I fully understand, appreciate, and agree with 2A. And despite your opinion, I fully understand 1A as well. Good night, gentlemen.

I always find it interesting when progressives call it pro choice or a woman's right to chose. Should be labeled correctly pro abortion.

Progressive gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

OP, your dilemma is a common one encountered by progressives in more situations than just 2a. It's called hypocrisy. Leftist celebs don't believe in your right of protection but have armed guards themselves. Farmers can't have water, but it's ok for San Fran to get their water out of Yosemite valley. Force the general public to get obamacare, but exempt unions and politicians.

Socialism is for the socialist in power not the people.

Just hope the big government you continue to support doesn't decide to take away more than just your guns.

I always find it interesting when progressives call it pro choice or a woman's right to chose. Should be labeled correctly pro abortion.

Progressive gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

OP, your dilemma is a common one encountered by progressives in more situations than just 2a. It's called hypocrisy. Leftist celebs don't believe in your right of protection but have armed guards themselves. Farmers can't have water, but it's ok for San Fran to get their water out of Yosemite valley. Force the general public to get obamacare, but exempt unions and politicians.

Socialism is for the socialist in power not the people.

Just hope the big government you continue to support doesn't decide to take away more than just your guns.

Well, we all know what opinions are like. I could cite a long, long list of Republican hypocrisies. A very long list indeed.

Well, we all know what opinions are like. I could cite a long, long list of Republican hypocrisies. A very long list indeed.

The majority of democratic voters are on the government gravy train be it different social programs or because they are government employees. Most do not share the ideals of the progressives they vote for or worse are unaware of them.

The problem isn't our difference of opinions, it's that I want a constrained government and you vote for one that wishes to shed it's constraints and have more involvement in our everyday life.

Like I said previously that sits fine with you when progressive ideology matches yours, but giving Government the power to force their ideology may someday not align with yours on issues other than guns.

This is why you can not have your cake and eat it to.
2a is a liberty, that collides head on with progressive socialism.

Like I said previously that sits fine with you when progressive ideology matches yours, but giving Government the power to force their ideology may someday not align with yours on issues other than guns .

And like I also said previously, it will be that overreach of government power that will likely force at least some liberals to question their unquestionable obedience. And once they come to that conclusion, a logical progression of thought just may lead them to the meat and bones of 2A. And if they had already had experience with firearms in a sporting sense, it will make that realization that much easier.